Could a Bolt Action Really be combat weapon compared with any semi-auto?

[psyopspec]

I also read that in WWII, Russians would literally send raw draftees out into the streets of Moscow, only arming every other soldier, telling them that they have a less than 50% survivability rating, so grab the dropped rifle of the dead man in front of you. Talk about de-motivators...

Recruitment posters of the day read "You made your child melancholy. We'll make them RED ARMY melancholy."

 

[CWL]

The Battle of Thermopylae (Origins of the movie "300") is a prime example...the Greek force was outnumbered 7,400 (300 well trained Spartans) to 2,500,000 (or perhaps as many as 4 million). The Greeks had inferior gear and numbers, but many were very well trained and were superior tacticians. Greeks won...nuf said.

Rather than getting history from a movie based-on a comic book...

There were another 7,000 Greek allies fighting there with the Spartans plus unknown numbers of slaves (probably 1/1 to the Greeks present) who also fought.

If there were actually 2.5-4 million Persians fighting at Thermopylae, their army marching column would have been so long that most of them wouldn't even have left Persia by the time of the battle (don't even try to suggest that there are enough ships in the entire Ancient world to carry 1 million men).

 

[Green Dragoon]

There was an article I read years ago written by a retired Police Chief that said he would rather face a punk with a machine gun then someone that knew what they were doing with a single shot .22 . Would a bolt gun be the ideal in a combat environment no , but if you knew what you were doing and were able to use it properly you could at least surivive.
Plain and simple there is no sustitute for kowledge of your weapon and pratice.

 

[Reid73]

Note that the United States Army never sends out unarmed patrols in combat.

Note that the United States Army has access to handy little SMGs and automatic carbines, which were entirely unavailable in 1915. Note also that "unarmed" and "no firearms" are not identical.

In the First World War, it was entirely common for raiding parties on both sides to eschew firearms, which simply were unsuitable for that mission. Instead, they used improvised silent weapons such as spades, homemade clubs, daggers, etc., backed up by grenades and handguns if they could get them. See generally "Trench Raiding"; "'Midnight Raids on the German Lines"; "Hand Weapons of Trench Raiders".

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Note that the United States Army has access to handy little SMGs and automatic carbines, which were entirely unavailable in 1915. Note also that "unarmed" and "no firearms" are not identical.

In the First World War, it was entirely common for raiding parties on both sides to eschew firearms, which simply were unsuitable for that mission. Instead, they used improvided silent weapons such as spades, homemade clubs, daggers, etc., backed up by grenades and handguns if they could get them. See generally "Trench raiding".

Which accounts for the general lack of success in such missions.

On this mission, they failed -- no prisoner was taken. Of 19 men and 1 officer with the patrol, 17 men were killed, the officer was mortally wounded and died attempting to crawl back to the British trenches. Empey lay in a shallow shell hole for a day and a half before being found.

Now, I have been on a combat patrol or two myself. When I was an adviser to ARVN infantry, my weapon of choice was an M1 rifle. When I was an infantry company commander, I chose an M14 sniper rifle, even though my company was issued M16s.

The lesson is clear -- men with firearms generally beat the crap out of men without firearms.

 

[Reid73]

Which accounts for the general lack of success in such missions.

On this mission, they failed

You're citing one failure as proof of "general lack of success"?

Men with firearms generally beat the crap out of men without firearms.

I agree with that principle: it's only common sense. But it isn't particularly relevant to your original question [viz., "How could officers allow stuff like this to happen?"].

For raiding purposes, a determined man with a sharp knife was (and is) more than a match for an unaware sentry armed with any firearm.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I agree with that principle: it's only common sense. But it isn't particularly relevant to your original question [viz., "How could officers allow stuff like this to happen?"].

For raiding purposes, a determined man with a sharp knife was (and is) more than a match for an unaware sentry armed with any firearm.

And you know that from personal experience?

 

[vanfunk]

The lesson is clear -- men with firearms generally beat the crap out of men without firearms.

I've been waiting for a new signature line to come along, and I think it just found me. Duly attributed, of course.

Thank you, Vern!

vanfunk

 

[Arbor]

A pump-action shotgun or lever rifle would be much more capable. Still, I'd take the semi over either one even if it only held 5 rounds.

 

[Reid73]

No Vern, I sure don't. Frankly, running around slashing throats is not my kind of thing.

Do you have any firsthand experience that suggests that contrary? If you, as a dozy sentry, have personally successfully seen off numerous stealthy knife-attackers, please share some details. Thanks.

 

[John Parker]

Well aimed bolt action rifle fire is fine in certain circumstances but with a 1000 men all pouring lead on your position at semi-auto rates of fire how could you even lift your head from cover to fire back? You couldn't. And while you were pinned down groups of those 1000 are going be free to maneuver themselves into position to kill you. And they will.

That was exactly my point...1,000 guys with semis would beat 50 marksmen with bolties.

 

[P.B.Walsh]

Quote:
Well aimed bolt action rifle fire is fine in certain circumstances but with a 1000 men all pouring lead on your position at semi-auto rates of fire how could you even lift your head from cover to fire back? You couldn't. And while you were pinned down groups of those 1000 are going be free to maneuver themselves into position to kill you. And they will.

That was exactly my point...1,000 guys with semis would beat 50 marksmen with bolties.

True

 

[SharpsDressedMan]

Well, since none of us are ever going to be pinned down by 1000 armed with semi/full auto rifles, lets consider the "real" likelyhood that they would, in large numbers, acidentally shoot each other trying to shoot me/us, and that my rounds would ultimately pass through my targeted bad guys, and hit the enemy behind said bad guys, allowing me to drop them more quickly. As long as I had several hundred rounds on me for my bolt action (about as likely as facing off with a thousand), I think they might have to go get more bad guys.......

 

[John Parker]

I think they'd do just fine killing you. 1,000 bad guys with semis v 50 of the worlds best riflemen with bolt action guns. Base of fire, 3-5 second buddy rushes, maneuvering and suppression...yeah, the 50 guys would get wiped out. There is a reason why every army trains offensive operations this way: because it works!

 

[cipher]

By the way the Spartans were the highpoint of weapon and military technology, they were far better equipped than the invading Persians.
A combination of bronze, and iron weapons, professional training, knowing their own backyard, and the motivation to defend their country from an army that just rolled through the open plains of Asia unstoppable was how they did it. The Spartans (any Greeks soldiers really) had the best options for weapons and armor in the world at that time. The Greeks had a large multi layer bronze shield, that when used correctly in formation protected them from their helmet to their ankle, as well part of the soldier to their immediate right. They had lightweight, well balanced 8ft long spears with razor sharp iron points, they had a chest plate of bronze armor that protected them from any sword, spear, arrow, etc that would hit them in the entire torso. They had multilayer bronze helmets that protected almost the entire head and neck, they had armor that protected the ankle and lower leg (dont go by the movie 300 for the truth). The Greeks had well designed javelins (carried many of them) to throw, and were experts at this. The Greeks had razor sharp short swaords, and their training focused purely on using a simple effective, and organized style of fighting as a single force, not one Greek would step from his postion, this was why the Greek Phalanx was impossible to stop for so many hundred years, this is why the Greek Phalanx was so effective to conquer all of Asia to almost China. The Greeks had a hand to hand combat system called Pancration, this, and thanks to Alexander the Great was the predecessor to all martial arts in the far east, or the style that revolutionized all other martial arts.
The Persians had wicker shields, cloth, wood, leather, and wicker armor and clothing. The Persians were used to fighting in cavalry charges in open fields.
They had a mix and match of short swords, dagger, short spears, arrows and bows, etc.
On 2 major battles before and after the battle of Themopolyae the Greeks were outnumbered by 3 to 1, or 10 to 1, both times the Greeks won because of superior training, superior equipment, and superior tactics. The Persians used their money to influence the Greeks as an army for hire during these times, the Persians knew they could not defeat the Greek army no matter what, but money and power have advantages.
A bolt action used a a sniper rifle in the right hands can be a very deadly weapon, in fact it can and has proven to be a better choice for a sniper than the Russian semiauto dragunov. A sniper is vulnerable, and needs lots of support, so a bolt action has its place if used correctly.

My old Classical Civ professor would eat this one up. That's some serious propaganda right there.

To begin with, the Chinese were practicing Gung-Fu before the Greeks even existed.

The Persians never used cavalry charges, cause there were no stirrups. Their cavalry was lightly armored and threw javelins. Just like the Greek before Alexander's father, Phillip. The Macedonians were the first to be documented performing cavalry charges on infantry. It was actually his cavalry tactics that gave Alexander his empire; those super elite hoplites you were referring to were stripped them down to light infantry, exactly like the Persian except with even longer spears. That way they were more mobile and had more strategic advantage.

The Persians beat the Greeks plenty of times, and it was more internal strife/revolts/logistical challenges that stopped Darius from swallowing them up. The "army for hire" story that Polybius wrote about reads like the 300 screenplay and probably never even happened. For that matter Thermopylae's questionable, and at any rate Herodotus himself admitted there were over 3,000 Greeks, if only 300 Spartans among them.

Also the whole 10-1 thing in general comes from exaggerations. Herodotus once claimed that the Persians arrived with over 1,000,000 troops, even a tenth of that number would have been ludicrous in that time period. And I have no problem with people crafting legends to inspire people, but calling the Greeks all this is going a bit far.

Oh, and bolt actions are great till they find the bush you're hiding behind...They say Patton loved the M1 Garand so much cause he could use his poorly trained draftees to concentrate firepower on enemy positions. I guess he thought like Alexander. You need some kind of semi automatic support. You don't want to be stuck with a 700 when they finally overrun your position.

I attached a picture of the ancient Greek "predecessor to kung-fu".

 

[HorseSoldier]

Which accounts for the general lack of success in such missions.

I believe it was successful enough that the guys making decisions at the sharp end kept sending out raiding parties armed with handguns and blunt instruments, and leading the same, throughout most of that particular war for prisoner snatches.

I've read a number of accounts of such missions working out just fine, though it definitely must have taken pretty iron nerves, even by combat soldier standards, to low crawl across No Mans Land armed with a trench knife, a sap, and a pocket full of hand grenades . . .

 

[P.B.Walsh]

....you'd have to be a MAN!!!!!

 

[Ignition Override]

Mr. Vern Humphrey, Mr. King Ghidora (and others):

You gents have described some WW1 and other combat situations in very readable "nutshells".
For a middle-aged guy who is a late-bloomer with guns (but read ancient/medieval/some WW2 history), all of you guys' comments are educational and enlightening. It is rewarding to read such topics, among the rest.

Also-if you guys will pass through my area (with about six weeks' notice), can then plan specific days off, meet and go 'zap' some targets. Any e-mail etc is welcome. Use my x54R or .303 (both corrosive), or clean Russian 7.62x39 ammo, free of charge.

 

[woodybrighton]

think you need to actually read some ww1 history and not just make stuff up.

50 snipers spread out against a battalion so the battalion loses its command structure in the first 5 minutes attack goes to rat****
been in a Sim gear assualt like that you go firm blat some rounds off and find cover and wait for somebody to figure out what to do. which doesn't really happen.
The British army was not completely clueless by 1917 they were using combined arms and tanks to some effect.
trench raiding relied on stealth and surprise rifles would be of little use in that role

 

[LAK]

The significance of the semi-automatic rifle is perhaps rather more pronounced when employed in concerted small unit tactics. And only when employed by persons with the discipline and skills necessary to make small unit tactics effective, when circumstances, topography etc, lend the advantage.

When referring to the early repeaters and semi-autos there must be a differentiating between those chambered for pistol cartridges, intermediate, and the more powerful rifle cartridges like the .30-06. Each has advantages and disadvantages, and effective range, ability to penetrate cover will vary.

I would place discipline, tactics, skills, health and morale as more significant than weapon type. These have been the major contributing factors in many a fight and many a war.

 

[Todd1700]

That was exactly my point...1,000 guys with semis would beat 50 marksmen with bolties.

And I was agreeing with you.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

No Vern, I sure don't. Frankly, running around slashing throats is not my kind of thing.

Do you have any firsthand experience that suggests that contrary? If you, as a dozy sentry, have personally successfully seen off numerous stealthy knife-attackers, please share some details. Thanks.

You have a vivid imagination -- but combat reality does not square with your imagination.

 

[Slamfire]

The idea that "our skillful troops" with bolt actions could overcome masses of marginally skilled opponents is based on several false assumptions. One is that all peacetime time troops get enough trigger time to learn shooting skills.
Another is that there is enough time in a war to train people to a high shooting skill level.

The skills to shoot accurately must be learned in peacetime, because of the time it takes. Shooting accurately is a skill. Two weeks of familiarization won't do it.

But, the Cold War experience of our Armed forces is that in peacetime training is cut to the bone. Money is spent on politically well connected major acquisition programs, not boots, bullets, facilities or training.

When the peacetime troops get deployed, they are the best we have. But few have decent weapon skills. As we found, Private Jessica could not clear a weapon malfunction in her M16. She was a support trooper, and as one, pre war cost cutting myths were such that support troops "only needed to know how to pump gas, because they would not be near the front line".


In a major war, peacetime troops get used up quickly. In both major wars early enlistments had a number of good shots. Within nine months, 99% of those guys were in graves. By the third year, hardly anyone in the ranks is capable of hitting a person beyond 300 yards.

The April 1918 German offensive, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spring_Offensive, the Germans lost 239,000 men in one month. Accelerated training for replacements just won’t bring them up to the quality level of the pre war guys.

Weapon design after WWII emphasized firepower, not accuracy. Good weapon design prioritized low cost and ease of manufacture. There is no need to give a soldier an expensive target grade weapon when he gets maybe two weeks of weapons training and the soldier will be dead within the year and his weapon a twisted wreck in the mud.


As an aside, my Uncle in the 101 Airborne, 501 PIR F company got exactly five rounds of familiarization before being dropped over Normandy. If he had not been a country boy, shooting squirrels and stuff, he would have had no idea how to shoot.

His brother, was in theater 20 days before a mortar ended his life. No shooting skills I know of will knock a mortar shell out of the air.

 

[Reid73]

though it definitely must have taken pretty iron nerves

No doubt. See here for a contemporary account.

Okay Vern, so neither of us has personal experience of trench raiding ... about what I figured.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Okay Vern, so neither of us has personal experience of trench raiding ... about what I figured.

Actually, when you consider going into tunnels and fighting in base camps, only one of us has no personal experience of this kind of fghting.